Geddis: Is someone trying to game the MMP review?

31 comments on “Geddis: Is someone trying to game the MMP review? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   24 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

   Replying here since I don’t want to create a ‘pundit account’ (whatever that is) to comment. This is a reply to one Andrew’s own comments in the comment thread.

   “The real impact will come in terms of pure numbers – so if (say) the Commission recommends to the Government that the “electorate lifeboat” exception be abolished, but also reports that (say) 55% of those commenting on its recommendations opposed this move, then that’s going to make it a lot easier to ignore what it says.”

   Indeed this is the problem. So I think rather than report such a number, they need to highlight the fact that ‘apparent form submissions’ were a certain percentage of all submissions. I believe many select committees do the same thing and then count them as a single submission.
   • Bunji 1.1

     24 August 2012 at 12:42 pm

     I don’t think that’s good behaviour by select committees. Every response from a member of the public is valid and where thousands are combined to 1 because they come from an easy aggregating site, that’s denying the number with those views.

     You may not agree with them, they may have had it made easy to submit those views, but those are legitimate views of members of the public. The correct response to opposing views being made easy to submit is to submit yourself, and ideally make it easy for like-minded others to do so.

     So say you agree with the electorate lifeboat being removed. Ask for a lower threshold. And anything else you want, or just go with something short.

     It is in fact very easy to put a submission in. It only takes a minute, and we all should do it. I have.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       24 August 2012 at 1:02 pm

       I’m not saying that they should be counted as one, and I agree it’s a poor thing to do.

       What I’m saying is that instead of only reporting a single number, they should report a number that excludes ‘form-like’ responses, and another number that includes them.
       • BernyD 1.1.1.1

         24 August 2012 at 1:08 pm

         That’s a hard thing to do, and would only catch a few, many people might indeed do it without collusion of any kind.
         And how do you judge someones emotional state etc ?
         It’s all or nothing really.
2. BernyD 2

   24 August 2012 at 12:38 pm

   Surely its an invalid number as people who don’t comment or submit opinions should be a factor of the “Overall” submissions counted.
3. DH 3

   24 August 2012 at 12:40 pm

   Can see why he’s suspicious, odd grammar using the word elected & even odder that two unrelated people would use it in identical fashion …..

   First one….

   “…it is fair they receive the number of list seats the public have elected them to have.”

   Second one…

   “…it’s fair that they receive the number of list seats the public have elected them.”
   • BernyD 3.1

     24 August 2012 at 12:46 pm

     True, it’s likely a “Highjack”, which is why in context it should be 1 opinion out of 3million
     • McFlock 3.1.1

       24 August 2012 at 1:29 pm

       I recall filling in postcards on different issues and sending them to parliament as submissions. Not because I was paid, but because I agreed with the sentiment on the card and it expressed the issue better than I could.
                    
       Provided the submitters are all genuine, I have no problem with someone advising supported on wording or ideal topics to cover. 
            
        
       • BernyD 3.1.1.1

         24 August 2012 at 1:32 pm

         Exactly, and what is “Genuine”, a comment is a comment
         • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2012 at 1:43 pm

           I was thinking “genuine” as in “actually intended to post”, not just fraudulently going around the rest home or taking advantage of ESL speakers, or even paying people to send them off.
           • insider 3.1.1.1.1.1

             24 August 2012 at 1:45 pm

             Like paying people to drum up signatures?
             • McFlock …

               24 August 2012 at 2:01 pm

               Nah.
                  
               Like paying people to sign. 
           • BernyD 3.1.1.1.1.2

             24 August 2012 at 1:47 pm

             Our systems simply have to allow for that possibility, it’d be street level enforcement.

             And in a civilised world those are still valid opinions, no matter how they arrived at them
             • McFlock …

               24 August 2012 at 2:03 pm

               The payment thing is debatable. But conning people that they are actually signing something else is illegal, I believe.
               • BernyD …

                 24 August 2012 at 3:00 pm

                 True enough, but arguably not statistically sufficient to change the outcome
     • Anne 3.1.2

       24 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

       Of course its a highjack. I saw it in action in the 1990s. The right are clever and well organised when it comes to block submissions, referenda and voting. Their apostles are willing to be led by the hand and will do as they are told. See Epsom!

       It will be some kind of NAct off-shoot that is organising it, so that the NAct govt. can deny any involvement. Indeed, I have a good idea who the principle organiser might be… and no, I don’t mean Shirtcliffe.
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.1.2.1

         25 August 2012 at 9:04 am

         The wording of several phrases that appear in more than one submission is identical to that in the National Party’s submission.

         They don’t show up anywhere else online (according to Google) except in submissions.
4. captain hook 4

   24 August 2012 at 1:56 pm

   ipredict that if anyone is trying to game the MMP review then it will be ipredict.
   they are the ones that stand to make an immediate profit out of the democratic process.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     24 August 2012 at 3:23 pm

     iPredict is run at a direct loss for all of the contracts they run, so no, it is unlikely to be them doing it.
     • BernyD 4.1.1

       24 August 2012 at 3:26 pm

       Just as likely to be one person with an emotional grudge of some kind
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     24 August 2012 at 4:01 pm

     IIRC, ipredict is run by a university so probably not them.
5. joe90 5

   24 August 2012 at 2:06 pm

   I’m surprised anyone thought Shirtcliffe had gone away
   • eszett 5.1

     24 August 2012 at 2:47 pm

     Doesn’t seem to be going very far either.
     http://www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/ is still “under construction”. Quite symbolic really. Old man on a soapbox and no one’s listening.

     After taking two major defeats on MMP, I doubt he is the one behind this.
     The best way to tackle this issue though, is to make your own submission.

     http://www.mmpreview.org.nz/node/add/feedback
     • Cousin Marvin 5.1.1

       25 August 2012 at 8:04 am

       +1 Thanks for the link. Just made my submission. Only took a few minutes.
6. Kotahi Tāne Huna 6

   24 August 2012 at 2:57 pm

   If this is a coordinated campaign it is hiding its internet presence rather well.

   In the original set of submissions, according to the Commission:

   Of the 2,347 submissions received on this issue that expressed a clear opinion, 77% recommended that the one electorate seat threshold be abolished. 17% said it should be retained and nearly 6% proposed that it be increased to two or more seats (a further 88 submissions commented on this issue without stating a clear preference).

   So any attempt to go back on the proposal to abolish will have to justify ignoring the 77% in favour of the right’s little coordinated tantrum.
7. aerobubble 7

   24 August 2012 at 3:20 pm

   The one seat rule will go, Key would look bad if he ignored the anger on the issue of a
   graveyard identity robber getting into parliament due to Espom. Key’s more interest
   in the short term, i.e one more term, and that makes the Conservatist party a runner.
   So Key would want the 5% lowered. And good by Dunne and whoever is the next
   ACT MP standing in Epsom (unlikely to be a guy who could not remember a helicopter
   ride to a mansion, hasn’t ACT had enough of tossers as ACT MP for Epsom???).
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   24 August 2012 at 4:04 pm

   Just put in a submission. I wasn’t going to because, overall, I agreed with the proposals and didn’t see any need to change them. From reading Andrew Geddis article it seems that he’s advising that people don’t fall into the same trap and to get in there and submit.
9. georgecom 9

   24 August 2012 at 4:05 pm

   As already stated, if you think the electoral commission got it right, put in a submission.

   If you fear the process being swamped by ACT/National trying to game the system, put in a submission.

   I put one in saying the commission had got it about right. Scrap the provision for electorate seats permitting party votes to be counted and lower the party vote threshold to 4%.
10. Clashman 10

    24 August 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Just put my submission in and said that in particular the “electorate lifeboat” should be abloished.
    Thats one of the pro lifeboat submissions negated.
    Come on everyone do your bit.
11. Ianmac from Vietnam 11

    24 August 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Yes. Do it. I was a bit diffident but put a submission in this morning via Andrew’s page on Pundit. Easy actually. Just now I read the last submission on each of 12 pages and really we are just ordinary people expressing an opinion with as few as 10 words and not as I feared a legalistic treatise. Go for it folks.
    • ScottGN 11.1

      25 August 2012 at 8:37 am

      Agree Ianmac. Just did mine. Easy as.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS